Hey, are we free to delete the line-up from a release's additional notes once the artists have been added to the actual line-up?

I'd say yes, but just wanna make sure first.

What the hell? How did you do that? And in which browser?

Yes.

When the text select/insert cursor appears you click and you type )) IE8. Haxxorz.



Already asked on the previous page. HellBlazer/Morrigan are additional rules and faq in the works?

I'm sorry, but I don't see what is confusing. The green text says that it was updated and the tab will reload. How can you be confused?


We can always add new Rules / FAQs if there is something necessary. We've already edited it a bit.

- Sorting reports by Category does not sort them properly.
- On artist pages, if they were a session member on an album they are listed as "past bands". Example: http://v2.metal-archives.com/artists/An ... koula/1661 and http://v2.metal-archives.com/artists/Bjorgor/12731

There seems to be some sort of bug as it is happening in all artist pages.

Honestly 1000 times worst than before, a lot of info hidden or lost and no one advantage (maybe the search criteria).
Hoping to find another archive.

Reported.


Actually, they were listed as members, not session members. I've changed the first one to session member and it works just fine.

I have just added my first line-up and it is very time consuming to do so. Also the process was not really stable and somhow hung up again and again; but as the site seems to experience some lag at the moment, such seems only to be natural.

Nah, it's not time consuming, it's just that there is some lag at the moment.

Oh, really? My bad, then. I sometimes get confused because I am viewing the guest/session members of a release and click on edit and you get the full listing to edit, you know.

Another day, another suspension. Well, good luck finding "another archive" with almost 80,000 bands. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, dipshit.


If your IQ is below the triple digits, I guess it can be confusing...


Why would you use a piece of shit like IE8? Anyway, I have it, and couldn't reproduce it. Not remotely an issue anyway. Type all the silliness you want.


Agreed. Seems like most people would rather scroll back and forth rather than click though. I'm at a loss as to why. Scrolling is far more annoying to me. But anyway, layouts can be adjusted or changed later.


Thank you. So much. For saying this.
You're 100% right, the most important parts are the improvements to the database. Label entries, artist entries, non-repeated splits, review drafts, band drafts, band recommendations, advanced reporting, improved searching, modification tracking... this is what v2 is all about.

It's funny anyway, we didn't even do the new layout. We hired a professional designer and ergonomist for that, because HB and I both suck at design. She showed us those mockups and we actually loved them, so we used them. Never expected people would bitch so much about clicking...


For the last fucking time, NO. In any case, the two data models aren't even compatible.


5 additional times? Hyperbole much? To get to the band members, you need to click exactly ONE more time. Maybe two if you want to see the past members. Or three, to see the live members as well (which is far from being on every band page); the horror, the horror!

And I thought your use of "5 more clicks" was just hyperbole but you repeated it. It's bullshit.

Why do you claim to speak for every users? I'm a user too, and I'd rather click than scroll. *shrugs* People coming here talking as if they represented every users... who died and made you the userbase ambassador?

Honestly, I can't believe how some people are reacting to the new MA. Yes, it's different. And personally, I find there's a lot LESS clicking around, thanks to everything being organised by tabs and running on AJAX.


Precisely, the fact the database is now modular and properly abstracted means you could always roll out a new design at some point in the future... but the data would always remain the same. And that's the greatest achievement now, actually... the fact we can now do anything we like with the collected and refactored data.


I wouldn't.

Judging from the reaction in Facebook, the vast majority of users are happy with v2. It just so happens that those who aren't tend to be more vocal about it. Look at this guy:



His was so mad with rage that he couldn't even distinguish a comma from a period. Oh, and his weekend was ruined...

I especially like the part where he says we need to change all the time. As if changing for the first time in nine years means "all the time". New updates? Find out about new bands? Can someone figure out what is he talking about? The guy can't even think straight.

I love the random capitalizing of words, haha

Whaddya reckon, Morrigan? Reckon it'd top your current signature?

And you're right, Evenfiel. Everybody I've shown it to has loved it - the design AND the functionality. No, it mightn't be lightning fast, BUT THAT DON.T MEAN YOU NUT JERKOFF BIGTIME,,,,

I might have ruined his weekend, but this guy totally made my day. The band search isn't even on Google anymore, it's better than ever. What a tool.

OK, here's my feedback:
This is crap.

Tiny letters, stupid fixed column width layout.
The crappiest crap of them all is the band's pages. Tiny letters, again, especially in the area with bandinfo. Everything squeezed into tabs. I've had all the information on the screen at once. Now I have to click a myriad of tabs.
Where's the common sense...
I have difficulty with finding one advantage over the original layout.... trying... still...... Not found.

SERIOUSLY STOP SHOUTING AND READ THE FUCKING THREAD!

Sorry, i was not shouting, only trying to stand out an important (at least for, as you can see how often i defend it) point.

Ok, I have working a little bit these days on the encyclopaedia and, besides the loss of non-metal bands info which I'm always talking about, I must confess, as a compliment that the new system kind of remind me the Discogs one... Any of you use Discogs? Well, it's an enormous record database of any kind of music, from electro to world music. Ok, the system can seem a little bit tedious, and it's obvious it requires time from the user, but when it's done, it gives you a ton of info.

I must confess that here, in the encyclopeadia, I love to pamper (is this the correct word, I mean, "take a special care") the bands I like, so, I enjoy to tidy the profiles of my favourite bands...

I personally find the new metal-archives page to be pretty lame. The original look was great, and it was so much easier to see all the information at once without clicking around too much. If anyone's taking votes, I vote bring back V.1.

Mixed reception so far, eh? I find v2 to be very usable and not overly complicated. I enjoy the fact that it's being actively and constantly improved, which is now an easier and faster process compared to v1. I wouldn't want to be in the admin's place though, must be pretty tiresome.

Haven't had any serious problems so far, except for one thing. When adding an artist to a band/release lineup, the popup window tends to hang sometimes after clicking submit. It doesn't do anything, just stays there, and it needs a page refresh and re-entry of data every time it happens. Currently using FF4, Win7 x64.

Two more suspensions...

Morrigan, you gotta take it easy, you're gonna have a heart-attack, haha. Change always comes with a lot of whining. You should just ignore those comments and/or delete them. Most of them come from new user who probably won't post in the forums again any way.

What I don't understand about the clicking thing, is that you only need to budge your mouse a bit and click to get info. To get the same info in v1, you have to scroll, which isn't as instantaneous as a mouse click. Seriously, how can anyone think the info isn't easier to access with tabs telling you exactly where is the info you need and getting it within a second?

Midnight_Mover: Posts: 1
goatshit: Posts: 1

Call me sceptical, but I can't help wondering if either of those two accounts were created by previously suspended members. Or a disgruntled few who're registering multiple accounts to sound more numerous than they actually are.

In either case, kids, the admins broke their backs putting this new site together, and they're not charging you a single fucking cent for the service. Or throwing an advert in your faces. It's a serve provided out of love and dedication to the metal world, so man up, quitcha bitching and get used to it. The new system's far from fucking bad, and most members appear to agree. It's just a stubborn, snobbish few who seem to prefer their Dark Ages-era tables and frames layout... probably because they're IE7 users.



I think you'll find that's probably just the AJAX request taking a bit longer than usual to come back. The "loading..." symbol in the background (behind the dialogue) should show you whether or not the thing's finished loading. Just be patient.

Maybe someone should create a poll:
1. I like it
2. I don't like the layout, but the functionality is better
3. Throw it out and bring back v1

All who vote #3 are auto-.....

While we're relying on democratic opinion, we should also start another poll, too.

"Are we too hard on non-metal bands?
1. Yes we are, bring back Parkway Drive!
2. Yes, but I think we should all agree Slipknot can still be blacklisted
3. Yeah, let's just accept anything - Spirit of Metal-Archives v2.0, bitches!"

... sorry, but I don't see how a poll is going to fix or reflect anything.

I don't have to scroll at all or click to see who's in a band on v1.

@Alhadis: Too bad this is a user driven database. So man up and eat some opinions.

I've already gorged myself on plenty of like-minded opinions from people who all agree that the admins have outdone themselves with the new layout and build. To be honest, I don't see what people are complaining about...

After all the sweat and blood the admins poured into the new build, you really think they're going to go back on a whim and revert to the old design? Just to appease a few scroll-happy people whinging on the forums?

Clicking is sound polution.

The problem with the old site had always been that an edit in one line-up lead to some work in another one. Also the splits caused a lot of trouble. These days are finally over ... the frames were also pretty annoying; especially when you add some cache-related issues.

The problem is that you simply have to get used to the new style and design. MA has moved more in the direction of discogs, which is a good thing, because it makes it easier for the users to deal with things and to keep the sites up-to-date as well as accurate.

About the similar artists tab. Well I suppose when it comes to mainstream and popular artists there won't be any problem, many users will votes. This won't be of a great help to anyone since the results are predictable by everyone (due to popularity of such bands). Now what about the non-popular and the new bands? I don't suppose that many users will vote for those. Therefore there wont be any similar artist in their specific tab. For me showing similar artists for such bands are way more important then showing similar artists to Metallica and Iron Maiden, we all agree about that. I conclusion I suggest that "trusted" users should also have the ability of 5 votes.

Let me take a concrete example. The band Obscure Sphinx added lately by a moderator. He voted for Isis and Blindead (cool at least he voted so this will show in their similar artists tab). I agree they have similarities with those bands but it's really obvious that they sound much in the veins of Cult of Luna and Battle of Mice so I voted for those bands and the votes won't show until they reach 5. How many people will vote for such band do you think?

First off, I just want to say I absolutely adore the new look to the MA. Much more modern, slick, and generally easier to navigate. I like how there's the ability to see the reports people have sent in, the possibility of searching by labels, etc etc. Definately a massive improvement and anyone that thinks the new site looks shit needs to go check themselves into the nearest mental asylum. Change is good, especially when it's for the noticeable better.

A few suggestions I do have, however, are... (if they've been mentioned before that's cool, but I haven't scanned all 8 pages as some posts are looooong and I can't spend an hour reading through the whole thread) ...

1. When trying to add the label "Kneel Before The Master's Throne" is only adds "Kneel Before The Master's Thro", obviously because the length is too long. Could this be altered at all to compensate? I added KBtMT as the label as that's the abbreviation everyone gives it (A bit like NWN!, I suppose) but no question it'd be better if the whole name of the label would fit.

2. Raising the reccommended artist minimum from 5 to 10. The reason I say this is because a lot of similar artists added, such as with the Dimmu Borgir page, are absolutely pathetic and are barely similar even if you squint. As the MA has a lot of users, some of which probably don't know a lot about a great deal of artists, they will reccommend any old band they think sounds similar when in fact they don't. Raising the bar to 10 would also mean that if a moderator votes it won't automatically appear in the similar artist tab (as a mod's vote is worth 5, and the minimum is 5). I think this is probably better as it means that a fair amount of people will have to vote for a band to appear as similar, which gives a better reflection and, in the long run, won't clog up the similar artists tab with a bucket-load of bands.

3. Continuing on from the similar artists point, maybe it would be an idea to, once a band has a rating of -5 or more (see Dimmu Borgir page again, Behemoth are on -4 - fuck knows who reccommended that band as similar!) it gets deleted from the page completely. If this is already the case I apologise, but again it's another way to rid the page of a torrent of bands people add as similar when they quite clearly aren't. A way of streamlining information, perhaps.

I am really sorry to complain, but I really used this site very much until now. But the new layout really, really sucks:
just another java script orgy. Before, most of the data was available at one single glance, now I have to click for every bit of information. Truly an epic fail! Hope you will reconsider. Otherwise I am sure there will be a competitor filling in soon...

A competitor? I highly doubt it. If you're so upset at how this site looks now then feel free to go start your own database and come back in a few years letting us all know how your endeavor is going.

Aargh... Please make the new instructions crystal clear, and clearly link to them in the lineup/artist windows. I just cleaned up someone's mess, which could've been avoided by reading the instructions.

Firstly, he created a new profile for an artist who already had a profile with the exact same name. He wasn't properly linked between bands in v1, but the person would've figured it out if he would've bothered to do a little research about it. Secondly, he added the wrong instrument for that artist. Thirdly, he added an artist to the band's lineup as a band member with instrument "Keyboards (live)". Then he also entered wrong joining date for another artist.

Not a biggie, but imho a clear sign that the new system/instructions for it aren't obvious enough for everyone.

So generally, some people don't seem to understand how the artist pages work and how to create them and add them to lineups. Secondly, roles / year ranges seem to be confusing - at least with the part where you need to enter eg. 2005 to both boxes if the artist in question contributed in that year only. Thirdly, all people don't seem to notice the band member / live member / session member / misc. staff categories properly. I guess it helps that it's now impossible to add eg. a "Producer" role to anything else than Misc. staff, but it doesn't really help with live members. I suppose a big visible text saying "check out these new features" might help.

Aand what else... Stress the importance of readding legacy information 100% correctly. It's very hard to spot a single error in a long list of band members, meaning it may stay there for long. It's a shame if it was right in v1. Human errors are human errors, those happen, but paying some attention to what you're entering would be nice.

I'm curious what to do about band members who left the band and re-joined later as it will only allow you to add "from #### to ####" and you can't include their break that way.

v2 is only a week old. Wait a bit and we'll see if people add something to less popular bands.


I'll see if we can increase the number of characters in that field


The similar artist tab can't get cluttered, since it can only show 20 artists. After the limit is reached, those with less votes won't be shown.


Yeah, makes sense.


Instructions obviously wouldn't have made any difference in this case. Do you really think that he would have read them? Still, I think it might be useful to have a thread with examples and a link to it. I might do it.


If you're a veteran there is a + button where you can add more year ranges.

^ Well, I think it would probably help a lot to have a quite short summary about the new features and how to use them, and link to that visibly. A less frequent visitor might assume things work like they did before. At the moment some things are quite unclear for frequent users too.

More/clearer/visible instructions = win, always.

It will definitely make more people read them, and understand them too, even if some people still are too blind to notice them.

Well that's the thing, sometimes I've added 10 new artists while waiting for the one stuck before them to submit. I've waited 5 minutes at some point, which I think is beyond a gateway timeout.

Could be because of too much traffic? Has anyone had anything similar?